One could be forgiven for thinking that the synonym for “old French van” is “Citroën Type H.” They certainly were the most iconic of the bunch. But that’s the thing: there was a bunch – well, maybe not a bunch, but there were other options. In the ‘50s, the Peugeot D3 and D4 was perhaps the only real rival to the mighty corrugated Citroën.
The thing about the D3/D4A/D4B is that it wasn’t born with a heraldic lion. Even though it’s festooned with Peugeot badges and emblems – and features a bona fide Peugeot engine, exploring this FWD van’s true lineage will take us back to the northern Parisian suburb of Gennevilliers, a place that was never associated with the provincial Peugeot firm, but with a second-tier carmaker named Chenard & Walcker.
Created in 1899, Chenard & Walcker became a relatively important carmaker by the ‘20s, often being 4th or 5th in terms of volume behind the Big Trois (Renault, Citroën & Peugeot). Things took a turn for the worst and, by 1936, having spent a small fortune on a new FWD range that failed to impress and on a V8 luxury car (above) that was a hard sell in the midst of an economic depression, the ailing company was taken over by industrial body-maker Chausson.
As the last cars were being assembled in late 1939, C&W tried to interest the French Army in a totally new cab-forward FWD van, with torsion bar suspension all round. Three prototypes powered by a 720cc twin (including this ambulance) were assessed, but the Army much preferred Citroën’s more powerful 1.6 litre TUB, the ancestor of the H-van. The war put the C&W project on ice, though an electric version was produced in minute quantities.
When civilian production resumed in early 1945, Chenard’s little 1500 van (so named for its max payload in kg) was regarded favourably by French authorities, so production ramped up quickly. A larger 1.1 litre two-stroke parallel twin was installed, and Chausson’s design team gave the whole thing a thorough makeover for MY 1947, giving the little van’s unit body a far more polished aspect.
The in-house 2-cyl. engine was not to everyone’s liking, though. In a bid to increase sales, especially abroad, Chausson did a deal with Peugeot to supply Chenard with the Peugeot 202’s well-proven and solid 1.2 litre 4-cyl. motor, starting from late 1947. The larger engine forced the radiator to stick out of the front end, but the added power and sales were worth the facelift. It earned the van its nickname of Nez de cochon (“pig nose”), which followed it until the end.
It was 1948, a time when domestic and foreign appetites for vans and pickups was insatiable, yet Peugeot were playing the wallflower. They had just re-engineered their in-house van with the 203’s brand new 1.3 litre engine, but to no avail: the Peugeot Q3A, though not a bad vehicle per se, was nowhere near as practical or as modern-looking as the Chenard 1500 or the Citroën H, nor as cheap and reliable as Renault 1000Kg. Sales were embarrassingly sluggish.
It takes a great amount of pragmatism to recognize that a rival design is far superior to one’s own. The “not invented here” syndrome torpedoed a number of great vehicles and ideas, both in France and elsewhere. But Peugeot’s top brass were nothing if not pragmatists: they made Chausson an offer they couldn’t refuse. The Chenard van would become the Peugeot D3, gain hydraulic brakes along with access to the 1.3 litre engine, as well as Peugeot’s much wider distribution channels. The Gennevilliers plant and its sizable workforce would be safe for the foreseeable future.
So in October 1950, a few weeks after Peugeot quit producing their Q3A truck chassis, the Chenard & Walcker marque disappeared, both from their van’s front end in particular and from the scene in general. Peugeot’s first front-drive vehicle was born — out of wedlock, but still welcomed in the family. In the summer of 1955, the D3 became the D4A, gaining the new 403’s 1.5 litre engine, albeit limited to 45hp (gross). Peugeot’s pioneering 55hp Indénor Diesel was soon added to the options list.
The improved engines were a strong selling point – as was the new all-synchromesh 4-speed manual, which was not something many vans of the period could boast about. Peugeot also addressed one glaring issue with the original design: from now on, a passenger-side rear sliding door was available as an extra-cost option.
Our feature van has had a couple of mods, including one that is very commonly seen on Peugeots of this era: it was given turn signals from a later D4B. The original semaphores are still there, just behind the door’s top hinges, but have probably been disabled. Peugeot kept on using these antediluvian appliances on their van until MY 1962.
This is Peugeot’s commercial vehicle range for 1964, featuring the 403 Pickup and the D4 van in its final form. The plug was pulled in 1965 and the J7 took over, still built by Chausson at the ex-C&W Gennevillers plant.
Between 1950 and 1965, Peugeot sold just over 75k units of their little van. For their part, Chenard & Walcker had managed about 8500 units between 1945 and 1950, including about 2000 of the flat-nosed versions. It was a little less than Renault’s more traditional 1000Kg van (1947-1965, 125k units made), but not far off. Clearly, Peugeot had bet on the right workhorse.
Adopted vehicles rarely thrive; nor do they usually carry on being produced in substantial numbers for several years. Other examples might include the Simca Vedette, the Nissan Skyline, the Mercedes-Benz Harburger Transporter or the Ford Corcel. It may have been a hard pill to swallow for Peugeot, but their in-house trucks were really going nowhere (slowly). And on the plus side, rarely has a badge-engineered van borne such a beautiful badge.
Related post:
I guess it’s can week here at CC. Either way, great writeup! Not many people choose to import antique cans and trucks not originally sold in their market unless it’s some kind of promotional vehicle or food truck conversion. Even then, it’s rare.
I like the crenulated wire across the dashboard. I’ve only ever seen this on old French vehicles and assume it was an accessory to stop things falling off the dash.
“Born out of wedlock, but welcomed into the family”. Oh, that’s very stylishly Wodehousian, old chap, and by that one means un compliment.
Chernard et Walcker I’d heard of – god knows why, in truth – but I’d no idea about this van. It seems an inauspicious start, what with a stonking great 1.1 twin rattling one’s milk delivery into custard, but it ended up the right way, and I rather like the styling of the blighter. Though a confession – I cannot bear the corrugated conk-faced H-van, a blasphemy to garden sheds the world over, and still not redeemed by its seemingly-universal late-in-life function as a means for purveying curated and ethically hand-encouraged organic coffee bean and hot water mixes to the thinly-educated influence-peddlers rampant among us.
Wish I was adopted, might’ve got more front-drive if you know what one means, but now I’m just having a petulant and unnecessarily revealing digression.
Höhö – I kind of like this whole comment …
Nice write up of an attractive little van.
Pourquoi pas “le Grand Trois” au lieu de “the Big Trois?” Of all the French adjectives English speakers recognize grand/grande has to be at the top of the list, n’est-ce pas?
Because then I’d have to do it grammatically correct, i.e. call them “Les Trois Grands”, and it loses its similitude with the “Big Three”. 😉
The Peugeot Q3A (and its predecessor DMA) wasn’t a “van”; it was a light truck with a full frame. If you Google images of it, there are dozens of examples, all with truck beds on the back, like the one below (and in your own example). There is just one that had a van body. It was quite obviously a larger, heavier-duty vehicle, with a specific market in mind, and almost totally different than the CW van, which appears to have been oriented as much (or more) to hauling passengers as baguettes. Seems like an almost totally different segment of the market, one that Peugeot clearly wanted to get into, but it seems to have been purely an expansion, and not a replacement of the Q3A/DMA.
And it’s not like Peugeot walked away from that light-truck market or expected the CW van to replace it (which it didn’t). Peugeot continued to serve the light truck market with their 203-based pickup, which was undoubtedly a more pragmatic solution than the DMA/Q3A. This allowed them to cover both key light truck segments. The 203 and subsequent 403, 404 and 504-based pickups/light trucks were all very popular, and the DMA/Q3A were their direct predecessors.
The Q3A was very much a vehucle in the same class as the Chenard and the Citroen H. Similar payload, engine capacity, pricing, etc. — see table below, which was not compiled by yours truly.
As soon as Peugeot signed the deal with Chausson, they quit making the Q3A. Doesn’t that tell you something? Tells me (and I have French sources to bear me out) that the two vehicles were exactly aimed at the same market. Which they were.
The fact that the Q3A was sold mainly as a pickup truck, due to its frame construction, is not as relevent as you seem to think it is. Renault’s 1000Kg truck was exactly the same as the Peugeot, technically. And those sold quite well. Peugeot’s truck sold poorly, that’s why they switched to the FWD Chenard design and carried on with their car-based pickups, which were both far more successful.
I’m repeating myself, but it appears necessary. The DMA/Q3A were trucks with beds, not vans. It appears that a very small number of van bodies were built, almost certainly by a third party. It was a light truck (“pickup”).
The Q3A was replaced directly by the 1951 203 pickup, which was the first in a long line of Peugeot pickups that used some sedan bodywork, but had a different chassis. Pickups are of course generally used in different roles than vans.
The CW/D4 van was a true van and only a van, a distinctly different segment of the market, regardless of the weight capacity.
I see that Wikipedia says that the CW van replaced the Q3A. Well, as I’ve said many times, Wikipedia is not always right. The 203 pickup replaced the Q3A pickup. The CW van was a new addition to the Peugeot commercial line.
The ancestor of the 203 pick up is (drum roll)… the 202 UH pickup.
https://cars.bonhams.com/auction/28310/lot/103/1949-peugeot-202-uh-pickup-chassis-no-746188/
Let’s not invent market segments where they did not exist. Legal load capacity and engine displacement (both being taxed) were far more important to contemporary French customers than whether said vehicle was a tall FWD van or an even taller RWD truck.
Again, look at the Renault 1000kg, which you conveniently leave out of the conversation. Same segment as the Citroen H and the C&W 1500, but different solution, similar to Peugeot’s.
The Peugeot car/wagon-derived pickups were never rated to haul over 1000kg — those belong in a different segment indeed.
This makes me think of Citroen who build rebadged versions of the current Toyota Hiace
…rather the opposite
Badge engineering is a different proposition from absorbing a car company lock, stock and barrel, as Peugeot did with C&W, or Nissan and Prince, where the product survived, unlike BMW and Glas, where the cars briefly acquired kidney grilles before vanishing.
Captive imports and the occasional reverse like Mazda badged Fords in the US or the Toyota ProAce which is a mid size Sevel van and thus also sold as Peugeot, Citroen, Fiat, Opel and Vauxhall beating out the Daihatsu HiJet for brand names.
I rather like the heavily airbrushed 1936 RK DHC, I wonder if they even made a proper Coupe ? .
I like the details of these vans, ‘pig nose’ is a good moniker .
-Nate
Having been here at CC since day 1, I’m still amazed each time an article is posted about a vehicle I’d not heard of; even more so when I hadn’t heard of the make (Chenard-Walcker in this instance). So thank you Tatra87 for a fascinating article on a fascinating find! And it’s led me down an online rabbit hole learning about French vans – much joie de vie was experienced!
I really like the rounded backside look of this van. The rear bumper is the best looking “not a bumper” I’ve seen. Perhaps the middle section was removed for ascetic reasons.
What is up with the backwards P on the Peugeot emblem? Looks more like a lower case “a” or “q” to me. Just goofy.
“Perhaps the middle section was removed for ascetic reasons.”
My guess is that this was omitted so that the bumper bar could be used as a staircase by drivers and loaders (and ultimately kicked off).
CORRECTION: “… so that the bumper bar could not be used …”
These French FWD vans had a really low floor, so one can easily step-in from the street.
Quarter bumpers were all that was required. Otherwise, opening the doors might have proved problematic.